European Parliament opposes Schengen Agreement (1)
01 January 1991
European Parliament opposes Schengen Agreement
artdoc June=1991
The European Parliament has again voiced its disapproval of the Schengen
Agreement and its effects on immigration and policing. In a resolution
passed on 22 February, the Parliament complained that its previous
resolutions on the subject of November 1989, March 1990 and June 1990 had
been ignored. The Agreement covers the abolition of border controls, co-
operation on visas, immigration and police policies.
Georges Wohlfart, representative of the Council of Ministers, said in the
debate that the Schengen Agreement was `an inter-governmental agreement and
thus outside the scope of the Community'. Rinaldo Bontempi (Italy European
Unitarian Left) complained in the debate that the negotiations were in
secret and not subject to parliamentary controls; Claudia Roth (Germany
Greens) expressed concern about the impact on refugees and asylum policy;
Karl von Wogau (Germany European People's Party) supported the Schengen
Agreement on the grounds that it was a serious attempt to tackle the
problem of crime in an open Europe; Lode van Outrive (Belgium Socialist)
sought, unsuccessfully, to get clarification on which aspects of the policy
on free movement came under the EC's auspices and which were left to
governments to agree amongst themselves; Glyn Ford (UK Socialist)said that
`the knock-on effect of the work of the Schengen group and the Trevi group
on immigration were to actually exacerbate racism inside the European
Community'.
Commissioner Martin Bangemann replying to the debate said: `The Community
cannot afford to take on board a huge influx of new immigrants from Eastern
Europe and North Africa'. As to the Schengen Agreement he said there was
still a problem with the four other states who did not accept that the
Single Act contained a binding agreement to completely abolish internal
border controls. The resolution adopted by the EP attacked the undemocratic
nature of the Schengen Agreement and its effect on immigrants and asylum-
seekers. It went on to say that under the 1951 Convention and the 1967
Protocol on political refugees that the illegal crossing of frontiers by
political refugees cannot be treated as a criminal offence (para 7) and
that neither the Schengen Agreement nor the Convention on the Right to
Asylum (signed by all of the 12 EC countries except Denmark) contained any
guarantee that confidential information on an application for asylum would
not be passed back to the authorities in the country of origin (para 8).
The Commission's President, Jacques Delors, responded by defending the
`pragmatic' approach of member states. He described the Schengen measures
on migration and refugees as a source of inspiration for the activities of
the Twelve.
On 15 April 1991, the Dutch government's supreme advisory council, `Raad
van State' (RvS), a body that comments on the constitutional aspects of
every bill, stated that the Netherlands government should not ratify the
Schengen Agreement. The RvS feels the agreement gives other states
opportunities to withdraw from obligations they would otherwise have under
the refugee treaty of the U.N. According to the RvS, the `Schengen'
agreement conflicts with many other treaties. It is the first time in Dutch
history that the RvS has advised the government not to ratify an
international agreement. However, there is little chance that the
government will follow the council's advice. State Secretary Kosto reacted
by saying that Holland would probably not be allowed to withdraw from the
treaty it has already signed.
European Parliament resolution, 22.2.91; The Week, 12-15 February, 1991;
Migration Newssheet March 1991.
Statewatch no 2, May/June 1991